ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2010A-1284572-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2010-10-28

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 27, 2010 at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through their attorney, Byrl Lane. The Respondent appeared on his own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

Evidence and testimony were presented and the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Respondent’s License No. B.178738-R has been suspended by Registrar of Contractors for non-renewal. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent entered into a construction agreement with the Complainants to construct a new custom residence for the Complainants in Payson, Arizona. 3. Credible testimony and evidence established that the initial completion date for new residence was to be April 30, 2009. 4. Credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent failed to obtain the required construction permit for the new residence until May 2009. 5. As the construction of the new residence slowly progressed, the Complainants became increasingly dissatisfied with the Respondent’s poor workmanship and with the Respondent’s failure to complete their new residence despite being given repeated extensions of time to do so. 6. When the Respondent failed to comply with the Complainant’s repeated demands for the prompt completion of their new residence, the Complainants retained an attorney who mailed the Respondent a letter informing the Respondent that he was to cease his work at the construction site. 7. The Complainants then retained an alternative licensed contractor to complete the construction of their new residence. 8. The alternative contractor informed the Complainants that the construction work on the new residence was not completed to the state of completion previously represented by the Respondent and that there were several areas of construction that would have to be redone in order to comply with applicable code requirements. 9. The alternative licensed contractor then corrected the Respondent’s work and promptly completed the construction project. 10. The Complainants then filed a formal complaint against the Respondent with the Registrar of Contractors in the hope of obtaining restitution for the costs of correcting the Respondents’ poor workmanship and for payments to the Respondent for areas of construction work that the Respondent had failed to complete. 11. There was no onsite inspection as the Respondent’s construction work had already been corrected by the alternative licensed contractor, and the new residence had been fully completed. 12. Credible testimony and evidence established that the Complainants paid their replacement contractor a total of $11,465.08 to complete corrective work on construction work that had been previously performed by the Respondent. 13. Credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent’s construction work on the Complainants’ residence failed to comply with applicable workmanship and industry standards and that in many instances it failed to comply with applicable code requirements. 14. Credible testimony and evidence established that the Complainants had paid the Respondent $12,000.00 for stucco work that was not completed by the Respondent. 15. Credible testimony and evidence established that the Complainants paid the Respondent $7,000.00 for drywall that was never delivered and installed and that the Respondent has failed to return the money for the non-delivered drywall to the Complainants despite repeated demands that he do so. 16. Credible testimony and evidence established that the Complainants have suffered additional monetary damages of several thousand dollars for doors that were not delivered and for the removal of construction debris from the building site. 17. The credible evidence of record is insufficient and fails to support a finding that the Respondent abandoned the construction project.

18. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (3), namely, Rule R4-9- 108 (Failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner). RECOMMENDed Order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s License No. B.178738-R be revoked. In the event of certification of this Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 40 days from the date of the certification. Done this day, October 28, 2010.

/s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826